Reyes vs.

Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553

G. R. no. L-65366 November 9, 1983

Ponente: Fernando, C.J.

Facts:
Petitioner, retired Justice JB L. Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit from
the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00 to 5:00 in
the afternoon, starting from the Luneta, a public park, to the gates of the United States Embassy,
hardly two blocks away. Once there, and in an open space of public property, a short program
would be held. During the course of the oral argument, it was stated that after the delivery of
two brief speeches, a petition based on the resolution adopted on the last day by the
International Conference for General Disbarmament, World Peace and the Removal of All Foreign
Military Bases held in Manila, would be presented to a representative of the Embassy or any of its
personnel who may be there so that it may be delivered to the United States Ambassador. The
march would be attended by the local and foreign participants of such conference. There was
likewise an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to free
speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be taken by it "to ensure a peaceful march
and rally."
The petitioner filed suit for mandamus with alternative prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction on October 20, 1983 due to the fact that as of that date, petitioner had not been
informed of any action taken on his request on behalf of the organization to hold a rally.
On October 25, 1983, the answer of respondent Mayor was filed on his behalf by Assistant
Solicitor General Eduardo G. Montenegro. It turned out that on October 19, such permit was
denied. Petitioner was unaware of such a fact as the denial was sent by ordinary mail. The reason
for refusing a permit was due to police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the
advisability of issuing such permit at this time and at the place applied for." To be more specific,
reference was made to persistent intelligence reports affirm[ing] the plans of subversive/criminal
elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt any assembly or congregations where a large number of
people is expected to attend." Respondent Mayor suggested, however, in accordance with the
recommendation of the police authorities, that "a permit may be issued for the rally if it is to be
held at the Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed area where the safety of the participants
themselves and the general public may be ensured."
Issue: Whether or not denial of the permit to rally violates the freedom of speech
Resolution:
Held: The Court granted the mandatory injunction prayed for on the ground that there was no
showing of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could justify the
denial of a permit.
Explanation of the resolution as follows:
1. It is thus clear that the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights to
free speech and peaceful assembly, arising from the denial of a permit. The Constitution is

quite explicit: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of
grievances."
2. There can be no legal objection, absent the existence of a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil, on the choice of Luneta as the place where the peace rally would start.
Neither can there be any valid objection to the use of the streets, to the gates of the US
Embassy, hardly two block-away at the Roxas Boulevard.
3. Respondent Mayor posed the issue of the applicability of Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of
Manila prohibiting the holding or staging of rallies or demonstrations within a radius of five
hundred (500) feet from any foreign mission or chancery and for other purposes. It is to be
admitted that it finds support in the previously quoted Article 22 of the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations. There was no showing, however, that the distance between the
chancery and the embassy gate is less than 500 feet. Even if it could be shown that such a
condition is satisfied. It does not follow that respondent Mayor could legally act the way he
did. The validity of his denial of the permit sought could still be challenged. It could be
argued that a case of unconstitutional application of such ordinance to the exercise of the
right of peaceable assembly presents itself. As in this case there was no proof that the
distance is less than 500 feet, the need to pass on that issue was obviatedThe high
estate accorded the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly demands nothing less.